N'sync cut from star wars...some sanity..finally
- Thread starter V Nura
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
HeartlandGirl
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Praise Jesus!
Like the article implies, it's bad enough that Jar Jar is back.
------------------
U2 @ The Blooming Heart
Like the article implies, it's bad enough that Jar Jar is back.
------------------
U2 @ The Blooming Heart
wolfwill23
War Child
The movie will suck anyway. And frankly, I wish Lucas had left them in and not said anything so there could be a real boycot once the film opened.
It really hurts to see Lucas destroy this franchise for the love of money.
It really hurts to see Lucas destroy this franchise for the love of money.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Let's see...
We've now heard the "JarJar sucks" and "Lucas sold out" comments... for the first time in this thread, but for the millionth time in three years.
All we need know is a comment like "I hate the Ewoks" and we'll have a typical-knee-jerk-Lucas-molested-my-precious-Star-Wars "Trifecta".
(sigh)
1) I hate N*Stink too, but it didn't bother me that they were going to be in Episode II. Why? First, they were rumored to be killed off.
Second, they were fucking extras! They weren't going to be prominent, with speaking roles or close-ups. They were probably going to be less noticeable than the 2001 pod in Watto's junkyard and the Blade Runner police car on Coruscant.
How do I know this? Look: Lucas *did* allow sci-fi "in-jokes" like the ones mentioned and brief apparences by crewmembers, but they were only noticeable for uber-fans - those who would recognize the 2001 pod and Rick McCallum. But he also hired relative unknowns to play the key roles. I don't think he would have went out of his way to cast McGregor, Portman, and Christensen to have the theatre's mood spoiled by a hundred teenage girls screaming at Justin Timberlake.
2) Attack of the Clones might not suck.
I frankly think it's ridiculous to pass judgment (particularly sweeping negative judgment like "the movie will suck") without having SEEN THE MOVIE.
There was a time when soundtracks didn't matter. George Lucas' American Graffiti changed that.
There was a time when science fiction films simply didn't make money, in which the original Planet of the Apes and 2001: A Space Oddysey were the two high-water marks. Star Wars changed that completely.
There was a time when movie marketing was a tiny business. Again, credit Star Wars for the revolution.
Sequels supposedly always suck. The Empire Strikes Back (and Godfather II) proved otherwise.
Hell, U2 was supposed to be over with Rattle and Hum, and then they released Achtung Baby. And in the summer of 2000, people were wondering whether U2 still mattered; they've since been nominated for eleven Grammies (three from last year), sold over 10 million copies worldwide of their latest album, and have had the second highest grossing one-year tour in history.
My point is this: you can't know whether Attack of the Clones will suck.
Always in the motion, the future is.
As a Star Wars fan, you should know that.
3) Finally, if Lucas is "destroying the franchise", he's not doing so for the money, which he doesn't need. Granted, The Phantom Menace was perhaps overcommercialized as a business venture (too many product tie-ins, too many restaurant toys, etc.), but not as a film. It should be clear that George Lucas is making his own film.
IF Lucas was "doing it for the money", he would have tailored Episode I to the fans. The characters (particularly Qui-Gon and Amidala) would not have been so reserved, and there would have been a "Han Solo" character. Anakin would have shown signs of his "dark side". And JarJar wouldn't have been the "jester" character, a character type never really tried before in the Star Wars Saga.
Had Lucas been doing it strictly for the money, he would have done screenings and altered the film (he didn't, beyond a private screening among friends, including Spielburg, who suggested re-editing the final battle). He would have presented the Star Wars universe exactly as the fans expected. He wouldn't have challanged the audience to sift through midi-chlorians, immaculate conceptions, and political plots. He would have played it safe.
Lucas may actually be hurting the Saga (I don't think so), but it's one thing to say "he's destorying the franchise". It's quite another thing to say he's doing so for money.
We've now heard the "JarJar sucks" and "Lucas sold out" comments... for the first time in this thread, but for the millionth time in three years.
All we need know is a comment like "I hate the Ewoks" and we'll have a typical-knee-jerk-Lucas-molested-my-precious-Star-Wars "Trifecta".
(sigh)
1) I hate N*Stink too, but it didn't bother me that they were going to be in Episode II. Why? First, they were rumored to be killed off.
Second, they were fucking extras! They weren't going to be prominent, with speaking roles or close-ups. They were probably going to be less noticeable than the 2001 pod in Watto's junkyard and the Blade Runner police car on Coruscant.
How do I know this? Look: Lucas *did* allow sci-fi "in-jokes" like the ones mentioned and brief apparences by crewmembers, but they were only noticeable for uber-fans - those who would recognize the 2001 pod and Rick McCallum. But he also hired relative unknowns to play the key roles. I don't think he would have went out of his way to cast McGregor, Portman, and Christensen to have the theatre's mood spoiled by a hundred teenage girls screaming at Justin Timberlake.
2) Attack of the Clones might not suck.
I frankly think it's ridiculous to pass judgment (particularly sweeping negative judgment like "the movie will suck") without having SEEN THE MOVIE.
There was a time when soundtracks didn't matter. George Lucas' American Graffiti changed that.
There was a time when science fiction films simply didn't make money, in which the original Planet of the Apes and 2001: A Space Oddysey were the two high-water marks. Star Wars changed that completely.
There was a time when movie marketing was a tiny business. Again, credit Star Wars for the revolution.
Sequels supposedly always suck. The Empire Strikes Back (and Godfather II) proved otherwise.
Hell, U2 was supposed to be over with Rattle and Hum, and then they released Achtung Baby. And in the summer of 2000, people were wondering whether U2 still mattered; they've since been nominated for eleven Grammies (three from last year), sold over 10 million copies worldwide of their latest album, and have had the second highest grossing one-year tour in history.
My point is this: you can't know whether Attack of the Clones will suck.
Always in the motion, the future is.
As a Star Wars fan, you should know that.
3) Finally, if Lucas is "destroying the franchise", he's not doing so for the money, which he doesn't need. Granted, The Phantom Menace was perhaps overcommercialized as a business venture (too many product tie-ins, too many restaurant toys, etc.), but not as a film. It should be clear that George Lucas is making his own film.
IF Lucas was "doing it for the money", he would have tailored Episode I to the fans. The characters (particularly Qui-Gon and Amidala) would not have been so reserved, and there would have been a "Han Solo" character. Anakin would have shown signs of his "dark side". And JarJar wouldn't have been the "jester" character, a character type never really tried before in the Star Wars Saga.
Had Lucas been doing it strictly for the money, he would have done screenings and altered the film (he didn't, beyond a private screening among friends, including Spielburg, who suggested re-editing the final battle). He would have presented the Star Wars universe exactly as the fans expected. He wouldn't have challanged the audience to sift through midi-chlorians, immaculate conceptions, and political plots. He would have played it safe.
Lucas may actually be hurting the Saga (I don't think so), but it's one thing to say "he's destorying the franchise". It's quite another thing to say he's doing so for money.
UV2001
War Child
I know I just heard about it the other day. What a relief
I only just found out they were gona be in it after they were cut but it still worried me. Whoever complained to George THANK YOU!!!! Has anyone else seen the trailers? They looked better than the Phantom Menace but I still don't think they will beat the Trilogy
ocu2fan
The Fly
Bubba-
Not making a judgement call at all, but I know you are a Christian and I was wondering how you reconcile cussing with your faith. I'm not trying to cause a problem just interested in what you have to say about it. As with all of your arguments, outstanding job defending Star Wars, I for one can hardly wait to see it.
sulawesigirl4
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
errr...perhaps it's not my place, but I fail to see what there is to reconcile.
you might ask Bono the same question when you see him.
zooropamanda
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
oh please
I dont remember one of the ten commandments being
'Thou shalt not say the f word'
bubba, I think you'll find someone already said they hated the ewoks in a thread in LEM Stand.
I dont remember one of the ten commandments being
'Thou shalt not say the f word'
bubba, I think you'll find someone already said they hated the ewoks in a thread in LEM Stand.
ocu2fan
The Fly
Wow, the question was for Bubba and it had nothing to do with me questioning the 10 Commandments. That last response made me sort of irritated.
bullet the blue sky
Refugee
here we go!
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
"I realize I use the word 'fuck' a lot, and I'd apologize for that, but I don't give a shit."
- Lewis Black, Comedian
Thanks, sula and zooropamanda, but I have no problem addressing my stand on profanity and Christianity. Ironically enough, my girlfriend and I discussed the very same thing yesterday as she drove me to the airport. She thinks profanity is bad in all cases, and, well, I don't.
I have a deeply rooted cause for my ambivalence toward profanity (in general, at least): since I was two, I've been singing the Auburn University fight song, a song that includes the line "Give 'em hell, give 'em hell."
At the time, I was allowed to sing "hell", a word I was never allowed to say in any other circumstances. As my mom told me, there's a time and a place for everything.
That notion, that there's a time and a place for everything, has stuck with me, and I've since come to the conclusion that profanity isn't necessarily bad in all circumstances.
In other words, context counts.
Profanity isn't bad in art, because art is and should be unfettered self-expression: the highs of hymns and the lows of the blues, the subtlity of Casablanca and the bluntness of Trainspotting, the peace of U2's "Grace" and the mother-sucking rock-and-roll of "MOFO".
I also think that profanity isn't bad in humor, because, after all we're talking about jokes, an area where there are no "sacred cows" and things aren't to be taken too seriously.
And profanity isn't bad in the casual ease of friendship, when you call your friend a "son of a bitch" and you both know you're joking.
(Of course, these guidelines fall under 1 Corinthians 8; if profanity deeply troubles a Christian brother or sister, one should rethink one's words in his/her company. But, also, in this "brave new world" of the Internet, one has to strike a balance between self-expression and not offending.)
On the other hand, a lack of profanity does not necessarily mean that the language is good. If you tell someone "I wish you never born" instead of calling him "a worthless piece of shit", you're still spewing hatred. This is an example where Matthew 5:21-22 speaks quite strongly.
(In fact, the aversion to certain words - "shit" instead of "crap", "fuck" instead of "screw" - reminds me of those who specifically avoid "fool" because of the Sermon of the Mount. It's the exact sort of legalism the New Testament denounced.)
Now, we come to the point where profanity and the Ten Commandments intersect: taking the Lord's Name in vain.
There are a LOT of ways to interpret that:
* Swearing falsely by His name, particularly lying while under oath to tell the truth "so help you God" (though it could mean all lying).
* Swearing rashly by His name to keep a promise that you end up breaking, accidentally or otherwise - "I swear to God I won't be late" (often the result of lying, being unrealistic, or simply throwing His name around without realizing it).
* By being a false witness, declaring to be a God-fearing man though your actions show otherwise.
* By being a false teacher, that is, falsely saying "God tells us to do such-and-such".
* Manipulation, trying to conjur spells or change reality through mere repetition of the Name of God (in this case, conjuring in other names is a form of idolatry).
* Mocking God or his works (daring Him to strike you down, etc.)
* Speaking of God lightly ("G-- d---", etc.).
(Another question is, which words fall in this category? "Damn"? "Hell"? "Darn" or even "heck"? My feeling is these words are okay - or at worst minor offenses - while use of "God" and "Jesus Christ" are worse.)
In this list, things like lying, teaching lies, and trying to conjur spells seem a lot more egregious than saying "damn". While a sin is a sin (in the sense that it distances you from God), it does seem to me that some deserve our attention more than others.
At any rate, I probably do swear in anger more than I should, though I see little wrong with profanity in general. I figure that a healthy relationship with God (which I admit that I need to improve) should take care of these little details.
- Lewis Black, Comedian
Thanks, sula and zooropamanda, but I have no problem addressing my stand on profanity and Christianity. Ironically enough, my girlfriend and I discussed the very same thing yesterday as she drove me to the airport. She thinks profanity is bad in all cases, and, well, I don't.
I have a deeply rooted cause for my ambivalence toward profanity (in general, at least): since I was two, I've been singing the Auburn University fight song, a song that includes the line "Give 'em hell, give 'em hell."
At the time, I was allowed to sing "hell", a word I was never allowed to say in any other circumstances. As my mom told me, there's a time and a place for everything.
That notion, that there's a time and a place for everything, has stuck with me, and I've since come to the conclusion that profanity isn't necessarily bad in all circumstances.
In other words, context counts.
Profanity isn't bad in art, because art is and should be unfettered self-expression: the highs of hymns and the lows of the blues, the subtlity of Casablanca and the bluntness of Trainspotting, the peace of U2's "Grace" and the mother-sucking rock-and-roll of "MOFO".
I also think that profanity isn't bad in humor, because, after all we're talking about jokes, an area where there are no "sacred cows" and things aren't to be taken too seriously.
And profanity isn't bad in the casual ease of friendship, when you call your friend a "son of a bitch" and you both know you're joking.
(Of course, these guidelines fall under 1 Corinthians 8; if profanity deeply troubles a Christian brother or sister, one should rethink one's words in his/her company. But, also, in this "brave new world" of the Internet, one has to strike a balance between self-expression and not offending.)
On the other hand, a lack of profanity does not necessarily mean that the language is good. If you tell someone "I wish you never born" instead of calling him "a worthless piece of shit", you're still spewing hatred. This is an example where Matthew 5:21-22 speaks quite strongly.
(In fact, the aversion to certain words - "shit" instead of "crap", "fuck" instead of "screw" - reminds me of those who specifically avoid "fool" because of the Sermon of the Mount. It's the exact sort of legalism the New Testament denounced.)
Now, we come to the point where profanity and the Ten Commandments intersect: taking the Lord's Name in vain.
There are a LOT of ways to interpret that:
* Swearing falsely by His name, particularly lying while under oath to tell the truth "so help you God" (though it could mean all lying).
* Swearing rashly by His name to keep a promise that you end up breaking, accidentally or otherwise - "I swear to God I won't be late" (often the result of lying, being unrealistic, or simply throwing His name around without realizing it).
* By being a false witness, declaring to be a God-fearing man though your actions show otherwise.
* By being a false teacher, that is, falsely saying "God tells us to do such-and-such".
* Manipulation, trying to conjur spells or change reality through mere repetition of the Name of God (in this case, conjuring in other names is a form of idolatry).
* Mocking God or his works (daring Him to strike you down, etc.)
* Speaking of God lightly ("G-- d---", etc.).
(Another question is, which words fall in this category? "Damn"? "Hell"? "Darn" or even "heck"? My feeling is these words are okay - or at worst minor offenses - while use of "God" and "Jesus Christ" are worse.)
In this list, things like lying, teaching lies, and trying to conjur spells seem a lot more egregious than saying "damn". While a sin is a sin (in the sense that it distances you from God), it does seem to me that some deserve our attention more than others.
At any rate, I probably do swear in anger more than I should, though I see little wrong with profanity in general. I figure that a healthy relationship with God (which I admit that I need to improve) should take care of these little details.
zooropamanda
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
im sorry arun
what was this about again?
what was this about again?
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Sorry 'bout that.
Back to the topic of whether Lucas is "destroying the franchise" (and if so, for what reason), StarWars.com has published an interview originally seen a few issues back in the Star Wars Insider:
Q: It looks like this film is going to be a bit darker in tone and atmosphere than Episode I.
It's definitely getting a little bit more intense. The next one (presumably he's referring to Episode III here. -Bubba) will probably be the darkest of all of them. Ultimately, I have to tell a story. So the story comes first. And I can't really play it to an audience. I mean the story is what the story is. I knew that it was going to go very dark. You know, it may not be very successful when I get down that dark. But, you know, at least the thing will be finished and it will have been good to me. There's not much I can do about. I can't take a story that's basically very, very dark and make it happy. Because it's not.
Q: So you don't have that commercial thought in your head that this has to be a big hit?
This has never been a commercial idea. It's been one that nobody wanted to do, and it was hard to get it done, and everybody thought I was nuts. The fact that it has become commercial is sort of a separate thing that defies description. So I can't really play to that. And I don't really have to.
Again, Lucas makes it clear that - damn the consequences - he's making his own movie.
IF you're going to say he's selling out, crafting a crap movie for the sake of making more money, you'll have to also suggest that Lucas is either deluding himself or lying to us.
[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 01-15-2002).]
Back to the topic of whether Lucas is "destroying the franchise" (and if so, for what reason), StarWars.com has published an interview originally seen a few issues back in the Star Wars Insider:
Q: It looks like this film is going to be a bit darker in tone and atmosphere than Episode I.
It's definitely getting a little bit more intense. The next one (presumably he's referring to Episode III here. -Bubba) will probably be the darkest of all of them. Ultimately, I have to tell a story. So the story comes first. And I can't really play it to an audience. I mean the story is what the story is. I knew that it was going to go very dark. You know, it may not be very successful when I get down that dark. But, you know, at least the thing will be finished and it will have been good to me. There's not much I can do about. I can't take a story that's basically very, very dark and make it happy. Because it's not.
Q: So you don't have that commercial thought in your head that this has to be a big hit?
This has never been a commercial idea. It's been one that nobody wanted to do, and it was hard to get it done, and everybody thought I was nuts. The fact that it has become commercial is sort of a separate thing that defies description. So I can't really play to that. And I don't really have to.
Again, Lucas makes it clear that - damn the consequences - he's making his own movie.
IF you're going to say he's selling out, crafting a crap movie for the sake of making more money, you'll have to also suggest that Lucas is either deluding himself or lying to us.
[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 01-15-2002).]
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
And, as an aside, it amazes me that many think Mr. Lucas is making bad films to make money. As a general rule, bad movies don't make money - see Battlefield Earth, Godzilla, and even Howard the Duck. Good movies, such as Fellowship of the Ring and the Tim Burton's first Batman film, often make hundreds of millions.
Further, in the case of Star Wars movies at least, a bad movie doesn't save much money, either. We know the movie will require exotic locales, a huge number of special effects, and at least two huge action sequences. By comparison, the cost difference between a good script and a bad script is minimal; since the director is the storyteller, all that is required is maybe someone to help fine-tune the script, like Jonathan Hales, hired as co-screenwriter for Episode II.
The only argument for the theory is that Lucas created the character of JarJar to SPECIFICALLY sell toys, the character was found annoying by critics and fans, and the plan backfired.
Essentially, this theory suggests that Lucas is appealing to the masses to make more money - that he's making a bad film by pandering.
The problem is, this is no Titanic.
Titanic was OBVIOUSLY made to appeal to Joe and Jane Public, and particularly their teenage daughter. The Celine Dion song. Leonardo DiCaprio. The rich vs. poor bullshit. The stereotypical bad guy. All cliched, all utterly predictable.
Looking at Episode I, we have... midi-chlorians. The virgin birth. The uncharacterstically clean and beautiful spaceships. The stoicism of the Jedi and the Naboo queen. None of these are obvious appeals to the fanbase or the public in general. They're controversial, not cliched, and not predicted.
The idea that JarJar was there to sell toys flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Lucas is making his own movie.
Further, in the case of Star Wars movies at least, a bad movie doesn't save much money, either. We know the movie will require exotic locales, a huge number of special effects, and at least two huge action sequences. By comparison, the cost difference between a good script and a bad script is minimal; since the director is the storyteller, all that is required is maybe someone to help fine-tune the script, like Jonathan Hales, hired as co-screenwriter for Episode II.
The only argument for the theory is that Lucas created the character of JarJar to SPECIFICALLY sell toys, the character was found annoying by critics and fans, and the plan backfired.
Essentially, this theory suggests that Lucas is appealing to the masses to make more money - that he's making a bad film by pandering.
The problem is, this is no Titanic.
Titanic was OBVIOUSLY made to appeal to Joe and Jane Public, and particularly their teenage daughter. The Celine Dion song. Leonardo DiCaprio. The rich vs. poor bullshit. The stereotypical bad guy. All cliched, all utterly predictable.
Looking at Episode I, we have... midi-chlorians. The virgin birth. The uncharacterstically clean and beautiful spaceships. The stoicism of the Jedi and the Naboo queen. None of these are obvious appeals to the fanbase or the public in general. They're controversial, not cliched, and not predicted.
The idea that JarJar was there to sell toys flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Lucas is making his own movie.
#1bonobabe
The Fly
No offense to any Star Wars junkies out there, but I'm starting to get sick of hearing about Star Wars this...Star Wars that. I can't say that I don't like any of the films because I haven't seen one, but STILL...how many are we gonna make before we say "that is enough!!"?
~#1bonobabe
BONO WEBSITE: http://u2_inspire.tripod.com/
BONO LOVERS WORLDWIDE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bono_Lovers/
~#1bonobabe
BONO WEBSITE: http://u2_inspire.tripod.com/
BONO LOVERS WORLDWIDE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bono_Lovers/
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Six, actually.
Four are out now, the fifth is out in May, and the saga concludes in 2005.
Go rent one (I recommend the original Star Wars from 1977 as an introduction to the films), watch it with an open mind, and see if you don't like it.
[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 01-15-2002).]
the olive
The Fly
First film...Amazing
Second film...Great
Third film...Good
Fourth film...Mediocre
I think it's the trend that's making everyone nervous.
Second film...Great
Third film...Good
Fourth film...Mediocre
I think it's the trend that's making everyone nervous.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Disregard the fact that Episode IV was the first of its kind and that the saga was already an established franchise after Jedi, I'd give the following ratings:
Episode IV: Great.
Episode V: Brilliant.
Episode VI: Very good.
Episode I: Very good, but very misunderstood.
(I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that The Phantom Menace loses so much when taken as a a stand-alone film, when removed from the context of what's going to happen to Anakin and the Republic.)
Episode IV: Great.
Episode V: Brilliant.
Episode VI: Very good.
Episode I: Very good, but very misunderstood.
(I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that The Phantom Menace loses so much when taken as a a stand-alone film, when removed from the context of what's going to happen to Anakin and the Republic.)
Guy With The Stuff
The Fly
There is acctually a story outline and such for 7, 8 and 9 as well, but Mr. Lucas hasn't decided if he wants to release them yet. My guess is that if the next two movies do well and he is still relatively healthy, he will release them.
mad1
ONE love, blood, life
LOL!!!! U ARE ALLLLLLLLL HILARIOUS!!!!!!
star wars 567 suckied my arse
everything before that rocked major ruler earth, was an eyeopener and made women wear danish rolls on their ears.......
star wars 567 suckied my arse
everything before that rocked major ruler earth, was an eyeopener and made women wear danish rolls on their ears.......
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Welllll....
From what I've gathered over the years, Lucas mentioned the "nine-story arc" only once or twice around the time of Return of the Jedi. As the official story goes, that was only a half-formed idea running around in his head. The actual "saga" has always ended with Return of the Jedi.
In the last decade, Lucas has - time and again - emphasized that he's stopping at six.
Ultimately, ending at six makes sense - for Lucas personally (who would have to devote another decade to a third trilogy, and who wants to work on other things) and for the saga itself.
Star Wars is ultimately Anakin's story. At the end of Jedi, he's redeemed himself and become one with the Force. Anything following Return of the Jedi would be a mere sequel, and not the continuation of the same story arc.
And, mad1, I think you need professional help.
[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 01-16-2002).]
From what I've gathered over the years, Lucas mentioned the "nine-story arc" only once or twice around the time of Return of the Jedi. As the official story goes, that was only a half-formed idea running around in his head. The actual "saga" has always ended with Return of the Jedi.
In the last decade, Lucas has - time and again - emphasized that he's stopping at six.
Ultimately, ending at six makes sense - for Lucas personally (who would have to devote another decade to a third trilogy, and who wants to work on other things) and for the saga itself.
Star Wars is ultimately Anakin's story. At the end of Jedi, he's redeemed himself and become one with the Force. Anything following Return of the Jedi would be a mere sequel, and not the continuation of the same story arc.
And, mad1, I think you need professional help.
[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 01-16-2002).]
mad1
ONE love, blood, life
Similar threads
- Poll
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U2 Live From Sphere - Final Show SiriusXM stream
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase